Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

Peter Gutmann <> Sat, 19 November 2016 03:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 182261295C7 for <>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 19:01:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.697
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cWToAh5fTWDP for <>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 19:01:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE9C91295AC for <>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 19:01:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=mail; t=1479524502; x=1511060502; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=edqoSs7uMuFvgjYraM3xpur5ef6OS9AE3lzZBQCP6F0=; b=j0ybJP+H+7YOhzp8gF1n3Y9TAZBnB7IYMllAdnP4M/MA6ElBTzV5vFPp AuIvWMfUzc3kB+oE8VtOPbxilxERbXYNjIdhET1UlHbiXw5dHT6xtkc3Z Boh7DXr66REXyZDyELCsNYIxDlL+5ro+OmZgb6Nub622/ac543X1SKuZP R0GHaJe0idcVTJJNQahNn+VJrjG8q8NUSR9UtPpFnC1LqndmDliPPtZBp uQOdx0315kV7gJ8nYaEVEg9/TXp5nJLmGau6W/Ov4ANeZJizPrzrpgNEp v90fZ1t+K1Yk4OVt96ZK1BwFxGI9eKhMUBcNt6qRoUi10/wwwzYy/gvH7 A==;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,513,1473076800"; d="scan'208";a="115890428"
X-Ironport-Source: - Outgoing - Outgoing
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 19 Nov 2016 16:01:41 +1300
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Sat, 19 Nov 2016 16:01:39 +1300
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Sat, 19 Nov 2016 16:01:39 +1300
From: Peter Gutmann <>
To: Vlad Krasnov <>, "D. J. Bernstein" <>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*
Thread-Index: AQHSQUFcD667DaatoU6RNleDGo1T66DeMNiAgAAWzYCAAVf3+w==
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 03:01:38 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-NZ, en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-NZ
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 03:01:44 -0000

Vlad Krasnov <>; writes:

>Second: I don’t think that the changes between TLS 1.3 and TLS 1.2 are
>considered a major: just look at the difference between HTTP/2 and HTTP/1 -
>those are completely different protocols.

So are TLS 1.x and "1.3".  It'd be interesting to hear from other implementers
on this, but my secure-tunnel code consists of a high-level framework that
handles things at an abstract level, client hello, server hello, keyex, keyex-
auth, finished, and subsequent stuff, and that's the same for both TLS and SSH
(I use TLS names for consistency, but SSH does the same things under its own
names).  The bit-bagging for the two is obviously quite different, but the
high-level handling is taken from the same code.

For "1.3" I looked at what it'd take to bolt it onto the side of the other 1.x
code and it'd end up as this weird hermaphrodite mixture with huge amounts of
effort devoted to trying to track whether it's meant to be acting as 1.x or
"1.3", with the accompanying opportunity for problems if I miss something and
drop from 1.x to "1.3" or the other way round.  The easiest way to implement
it is as a new protocol, trying to pretend that 1.x and "1.3" are the same
thing just leads to an implementation nightmare when you have to keep the two

So at least from this implementation's point of view, they're different